antoniwan Posted February 24, 2006 CID Share Posted February 24, 2006 has anyone noticed there is no lag today? Sure speeds suck but 0 lag. i've been having 0 lag for the last 2 days. along with 60 pings on servers which is friggen sexy. downloads = along the 120ishkB/s mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drebel Posted February 24, 2006 CID Share Posted February 24, 2006 seems finally something is being done. Notice that not many people post about problems now they are back happy into their MMORPGs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robocop Posted February 24, 2006 CID Share Posted February 24, 2006 they are in their little fantasy WOW. btw antoniwan give me your xfire so we can play BF2 or any game online. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
resopalrabotnick Posted February 24, 2006 Author CID Share Posted February 24, 2006 10k is substantially a big amount of money. heh. 10k is the base fee upon violations for multi-national companies. not even 50 cents per customer. so a complaint costs them 50 cents a customer? they dick with the speeds and save transmission fees. as for being conformist, no, i'm not. i have simply given up the hope for anything in PR to change for the better. am currently waiting to see if the newest financial misstep by the administration manages to drop puerto rico's credit rating to junk bond status. then the statement from the administration that things are being done to deal with this minor setback. mwahahahaha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pimtag Posted February 24, 2006 CID Share Posted February 24, 2006 onelink giving me problems today the connection seems laggy and packet loss is incredibly high today what the f*** :-/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antoniwan Posted February 24, 2006 CID Share Posted February 24, 2006 not even 50 cents per customer. so a complaint costs them 50 cents a customer? they dick with the speeds and save transmission fees. as for being conformist, no, i'm not. i have simply given up the hope for anything in PR to change for the better. am currently waiting to see if the newest financial misstep by the administration manages to drop puerto rico's credit rating to junk bond status. then the statement from the administration that things are being done to deal with this minor setback. mwahahahaha lol. do you even know what you are talking about? >.> <.< -.- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaulJimenez Posted February 24, 2006 CID Share Posted February 24, 2006 not even 50 cents per customer. so a complaint costs them 50 cents a customer? they dick with the speeds and save transmission fees. as for being conformist, no, i'm not. i have simply given up the hope for anything in PR to change for the better. am currently waiting to see if the newest financial misstep by the administration manages to drop puerto rico's credit rating to junk bond status. then the statement from the administration that things are being done to deal with this minor setback. mwahahahaha Bro you must be some real bad ass Estadist freak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
resopalrabotnick Posted February 24, 2006 Author CID Share Posted February 24, 2006 lol. do you even know what you are talking about? >.> <.< -.- yes i do. look around you. for some reason puerto rico has a knack for taking anything that has one defining feature and reproducing it in a way that takes away that one defining feature. mcd's, wendy's bk in the states have fast food. in PR they have slow junk food. roads all over the world you can drive on. roads in PR just connect the potholes. other countries/regions have major telco's. PR has prtc. other countries/regions have utility companies. PR has asa and prepa. 50 states in the US have functioning governments. PR has the current and past administrations. the US has adelphia. PR now has onelink... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mazorco Posted February 25, 2006 CID Share Posted February 25, 2006 all of r just a bunch of mamabichos (cocksuckers) lame asses who depends pf mami y papi to live, get the fuck out of PR and stop whinning....of course if mami and papi let u....jackasses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mazorco Posted February 25, 2006 CID Share Posted February 25, 2006 all this crying babies see a gringo and just bend over and say: do me, do me.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drebel Posted February 25, 2006 CID Share Posted February 25, 2006 c'mon people avoid the political talk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thony Posted February 25, 2006 CID Share Posted February 25, 2006 all of r just a bunch of mamabichos (cocksuckers) lame asses who depends pf mami y papi to live, get the F#@& out of PR and stop whinning....of course if mami and papi let u....jackasses lol :haha: :::.. Download Stats ..::: Connection is:: 4534 Kbps about 4.5 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB) Download Speed is:: 553 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net (main) Test Time:: Sat Feb 25 2006 00:19:08 GMT-0400 (SA Western Standard Time) Bottom Line:: 81X faster than 56K 1MB download in 1.85 sec Diagnosis: Awesome! 20% + : 111.97 % faster than the average for host (onelinkpr.net) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-12IQA3HRN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antoniwan Posted February 25, 2006 CID Share Posted February 25, 2006 all this crying babies see a gringo and just bend over and say: do me, do me.... lol mazorco. how did you know? i'm so sad now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creepingdeath Posted February 25, 2006 CID Share Posted February 25, 2006 February 25, 7:20am, lots of timeouts... :::.. Download Stats ..::: Connection is:: 3606 Kbps about 3.6 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB) Download Speed is:: 440 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net (server1) Test Time:: Sat Feb 25 07:18:37 UTC-0400 2006 Bottom Line:: 64X faster than 56K 1MB download in 2.33 sec Diagnosis: Awesome! 20% + : 68.5 % faster than the average for host (onelinkpr.net) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-X6Q0IEKA3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creepingdeath Posted February 25, 2006 CID Share Posted February 25, 2006 Took almost a minute to post the last message! This is a ping to www.google.com Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=243 Request timed out. Request timed out. Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=243 Request timed out. Request timed out. Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=67ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=67ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=243 Request timed out. Request timed out. Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=243 Request timed out. Request timed out. Request timed out. Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=243 Request timed out. Request timed out. Request timed out. Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=243 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antoniwan Posted February 25, 2006 CID Share Posted February 25, 2006 damned creep. that's gruesome :S i hope those fuckers fix that soon. where are you located? i'm @ cupey --- Pinging www.l.google.com [64.233.161.104] with 32 bytes of dat Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=239 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=74ms TTL=239 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=239 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=239 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=77ms TTL=239 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=88ms TTL=239 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=102ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=74ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=86ms TTL=239 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=239 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=102ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=239 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=85ms TTL=239 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=96ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=99ms TTL=239 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=239 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=73ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=75ms TTL=243 Ping statistics for 64.233.161.104: Packets: Sent = 26, Received = 26, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 61ms, Maximum = 121ms, Average = 80ms Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thony Posted February 25, 2006 CID Share Posted February 25, 2006 mazorco my nigga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vamp07 Posted February 25, 2006 CID Share Posted February 25, 2006 Hi All, Just found the forum. These pings are from paseos. Pinging www.l.google.com [64.233.161.147] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 64.233.161.147: bytes=32 time=247ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.147: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=239 Reply from 64.233.161.147: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=239 Reply from 64.233.161.147: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.147: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.147: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=239 Reply from 64.233.161.147: bytes=32 time=67ms TTL=239 Reply from 64.233.161.147: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.147: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.147: bytes=32 time=75ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.147: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.147: bytes=32 time=82ms TTL=239 Reply from 64.233.161.147: bytes=32 time=84ms TTL=239 Reply from 64.233.161.147: bytes=32 time=76ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.147: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.147: bytes=32 time=76ms TTL=239 Reply from 64.233.161.147: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=239 Reply from 64.233.161.147: bytes=32 time=67ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.147: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.147: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=239 Reply from 64.233.161.147: bytes=32 time=83ms TTL=239 Reply from 64.233.161.147: bytes=32 time=222ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.147: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=243 Ping statistics for 64.233.161.147: Packets: Sent = 23, Received = 23, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 59ms, Maximum = 247ms, Average = 85ms Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creepingdeath Posted February 26, 2006 CID Share Posted February 26, 2006 Im at Toa Baja, near Estancias de La Fuente... Ping to www.yahoo.com, at 9:15pm Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=107ms TTL=5 Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=101ms TTL=5 Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=226ms TTL=5 Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=99ms TTL=52 Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=1975ms TTL= Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=82ms TTL=51 Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=133ms TTL=5 Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=51 Request timed out. Request timed out. Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=111ms TTL=5 Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=66ms TTL=52 Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=82ms TTL=51 Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=83ms TTL=51 Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=95ms TTL=51 Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=113ms TTL=5 Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=70ms TTL=51 Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=5 Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=102ms TTL=5 Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=5 Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=5 Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=98ms TTL=51 Request timed out. Request timed out. Request timed out. Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=190ms TTL=5 Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=158ms TTL=5 Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=52 Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=102ms TTL=5 Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=52 Request timed out. Request timed out. Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=97ms TTL=51 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creepingdeath Posted February 26, 2006 CID Share Posted February 26, 2006 Damn! Im trying to send an email with a 7mb attachment... Its been almost 10 minutes, and I cant send it! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Onelink sucks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creepingdeath Posted February 26, 2006 CID Share Posted February 26, 2006 9:36pm... No luck sending the email... Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=111ms TTL=51 Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=51 Request timed out. Request timed out. Request timed out. Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=52 Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=51 Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=80ms TTL=51 Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=89ms TTL=52 Request timed out. Request timed out. Request timed out. Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=114ms TTL=51 Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=89ms TTL=51 Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=95ms TTL=52 Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=67ms TTL=52 Request timed out. Request timed out. Request timed out. Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=52 Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=131ms TTL=51 Request timed out. Request timed out. Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=107ms TTL=51 Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=85ms TTL=52 Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=102ms TTL=52 Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=51 Reply from 68.142.197.88: bytes=32 time=114ms TTL=51 Request timed out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
necrogoldo Posted February 26, 2006 CID Share Posted February 26, 2006 Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600] © Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp. C:Documents and SettingsNecrogoldo>ping -n 23 www.google.com Pinging www.l.google.com [64.233.161.99] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=113ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=66ms TTL=239 Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=239 Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=101ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=239 Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=239 Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=76ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=239 Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=88ms TTL=239 Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=99ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=239 Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=82ms TTL=239 Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=97ms TTL=239 Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=239 Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=66ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=76ms TTL=239 Reply from 64.233.161.99: bytes=32 time=75ms TTL=239 Ping statistics for 64.233.161.99: Packets: Sent = 23, Received = 23, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 56ms, Maximum = 113ms, Average = 82ms Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaulJimenez Posted February 26, 2006 CID Share Posted February 26, 2006 Guaynabo : ping -n 23 www.google.com Pinging www.l.google.com [64.233.161.104] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=244 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=244 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=243 Request timed out. Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=244 Request timed out. Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=244 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=244 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=244 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=244 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=244 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=244 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=244 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.233.161.104: bytes=32 time=70ms TTL=243 Ping statistics for 64.233.161.104: Packets: Sent = 23, Received = 21, Lost = 2 (8% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 56ms, Maximum = 70ms, Average = 59ms Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robocop Posted February 26, 2006 CID Share Posted February 26, 2006 I'm getting a LOT lost Packets playing CSS!!!! Always 2-4 lost packets every match. Onelink sucks and it will ALWAYS gonna suck. Lost packets on pings to www.google.com or any other website too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sucredi Posted February 26, 2006 CID Share Posted February 26, 2006 Apparently they've now started to fix the problems. The timeouts and packetloss are related to them rerouting their connections to the new backbone. Do a traceroute on your own ip and see it for yourserlves: http://www.dnsstuff.com/ Look in that site at the right side of the page. You'll see the traceroute feature and put in your own ip there and trace it and you'll see. Let's hope the ISP fixes the problems by this weekend or early next week. *note: the backbone being shown is Qwest, and not Adelphia (any word on Qwest backbone quality?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.